Ontario Court of Appeal upholds citizenship oath to the Queen

Started by PrincessOfPeace, August 13, 2014, 09:26:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Orchid

I want to be Canadian ? but why should I have to swear allegiance to the Queen? | Emer O?Toole | Comment is free | theguardian.com

QuoteI can't bring myself to take the oath as a new citizen and condone hereditary power for personal reward

To become a citizen of Canada, you must take the following oath: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I've been living in Montreal for a year. I love it. I'm impressed by the grassroots social movements. The arts scene mixes world-class talent with community feeling and flavour. I can't believe how politically engaged my students are. And the interplay of First Nations, francophone, anglophone and new immigrant cultures makes this city extraordinarily complex and exciting.

I want to be a citizen of Canada. I want to contribute to Québécois and Canadian political life. But I don't want to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

As a socialist, hereditary power is anathema to my political conscience; I'm baffled by otherwise egalitarian people who are okay with aristocrats inheriting the position of head of state. As an Irish person, I'm aware of the historical oppression of my people and culture by British colonialism, and while I'm grateful that Queen Elizabeth II has in recent years made efforts to honour the Republic, I have no desire to proclaim myself her subject.

Unsurprisingly, I'm not the only immigrant to Canada to feel this way. Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan have been fighting a legal battle to obtain citizenship without the oath. McAteer and Bar-Natan have political objections like mine, and Topey, a Rastafarian, has religious objections. On Wednesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal threw out their case, ruling that the oath did not violate freedom of conscience, religion or expression, and that even though Canadian-born citizens never have to swear it, it is not discriminatory to require new citizens to do so.

There goes my hope for becoming Canadian without becoming a monarchist. So, do I say the words and get the goodies or do I hold fast to my principles?

An interesting article and a lingering dilemma for those moving around the Commonwealth.

On the one hand there is the argument that monarchy is intrinsically woven into the sociopolitical fabric of the country and therefore one must embrace it if they are to embrace all that the country (legally and symbolically) stands for.  On the other hand there is the argument that monarchy is, in actuality, only one facet of the country's political and constitutional makeup and therefore should not be an agency forced upon people who disagree with [it] - just as no one political party can be forced upon any one opposing individual. 

Yet both arguments are overly simplistic. They don't reflect the myriad implications - symbolic and literal - which are inherent in swearing an oath of allegiance (an act of recognition and acceptance) to a branch of government and an ideological hotpot (as the following musing demonstrates):

Quote-So, do I say the words and get the goodies or do I hold fast to my principles? On the one hand, I don't have to uphold the oath – no one is going to come knocking to ensure I support the Queen and her heirs in my life as a Canadian citizen. On the other, I believe words and symbols are powerful, that the way we use them shapes the world and our identities. Taking the oath makes me the kind of person who's willing to condone hereditary power for personal reward.

The court of appeal ruled that new citizens were not "literally" swearing allegiance to the Queen but "symbolically" to Canada's "form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy". I find this unconvincing. As a symbol, the Queen can be read in many ways, even within the limits of the Canadian political context (just ask First Nations communities). So if the goal is to swear allegiance to government and democracy, then why not choose a symbol that represents these things less problematically? The flag, perhaps? Or, why not offer a literal oath in lieu of a symbolic one? If the answer to this is that the Queen is an integral and indispensable part of Canada's form of government, then the oath is clearly not symbolic at all, but literal.

The lawyer for the government, Kristina Dragaitis, told the court that in terms of Canadian government, the Queen symbolised the rule of law and the right to free speech. This is ironic given that in September, when the case was thrown out of the superior court, the judge conceded that the oath infringed on the right to free expression, but ruled it did so only minimally...

Essentially, all these voices are arguing that, in swearing allegiance to the Queen, new Canadian citizens are not, in fact, swearing allegiance to the Queen. By this logic, could someone please explain why I need to swear allegiance to the Queen?
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil


Orchid

What makes [it] brilliant to behold in this context?

Compiling the information reported alongside a critical reading of the issue, the law has in this case exposed a myriad of contradictions and inadequacies.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Macrobug

GNU Terry Pratchett

PrincessOfPeace

QuoteWhen you apply to become a citizen of a country, it's not the responsibility of the country to change its style of government to suit your needs. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of a country are satisfactory to your needs, and reject the rest. If the three applicants can't accept that, there's no need for them to become citizens. They'll be the worse for it, not Canada.

We should have this tattooed on the forehead of everyone entering Britain.

Orchid

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Flying Flapjacks

#31
My view is going to be in the minority but here goes...

I understand the 'you've come to Canada and that's the way it is' part but as a Canadian citizen by birth I am not currently required to pledge a oath mentioning the Queen and I'm perfectly capable of upholding the laws of my country without saying those words. OK, I have some overdue library books and jaywalk on occasion but otherwise I try my best.

Having this viewpoint, I don't consider myself to be unpatriotic either. I am waging a guess that if citizens by birth had to suddenly swear such an oath, mentioning the queen and heirs and successors, as a condition of renewing their drivers license or health card, there would be more complaints regardless of whether her name is viewed as symbolic or not. I know that I would have a problem saying those words. As a matter of fact, the very idea makes my blood boil.

I have nothing against the Queen or her family. I love reading about them but I think the oath should be changed from mentioning her and heirs and successors to upholding the laws of Canada.

:hide: